December

6, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 76

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to

the fourteen women who lost their lives at the Montreal cole Polytechnique

engineering school. Today marks the anniversary of that massacre.

In commemoration of this extreme example of violence against

women, and in memory of these fourteen women, December 6th has been recognized

as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This

date serves as a stark reminder of the many women who are beaten, sexually

assaulted, or who live with the threat of violence every day of their lives.

We need only to look at the findings of a study on violence

against women conducted by Statistics Canada in 1993, where it was found that

one in three Newfoundland women reported experiencing violence since the age of

sixteen. The study also found that only 14 per cent of Canadian women surveyed

reported the violent incident to the police and only 9 per cent sought support

from social services agencies.

In Newfoundland and Labrador statistics compiled from

complaints to the police also indicate that violence against women is a major

issue in our Province. In 1993 the RNC reported that they had responded to 1,038

domestic disputes in the St. John's area, up from 854 in 1992. In 1993, the RCMP

received 305 spousal assault cases in the areas of the Province in which they

police. According to the Centre for Justice Statistics in Ottawa, in addition to

spousal assaults, there were 1,294 sexual assault cases in Newfoundland and

Labrador in 1993. While these statistics were not broken down by gender, it is

generally acknowledged that the majority of sexual assault victims are female

and the majority of offenders are male.

Yesterday, a copy of a December 6th commemorative bookmark

and button produced by the YWCA was delivered to each of your offices. The

bookmark states that "every community and every institution must work to build a

culture of safety, equality and justice for women and children". I hope that you

will show your support in ending violence by joining me in wearing this button

today; and looking around I am quite pleased to see that a number of members

from both sides are wearing this commemorative button.

Some of you may also wish to attend the commemorative program

which takes place this evening at the Recital Hall of the Memorial School of

Music at 7:30 p.m. The evening will feature a screening of The Vienna Tribunal:

Women's Rights are Human Rights, a service commemorating the fourteen young

women slain in Montreal and a discussion of anti-violence activities to be

undertaken by organizations and individuals in the coming year.

Last year, in this House, my colleague Ms. Patricia Cowan,

who was at that time Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, distributed a

bookmark produced by the Women's Policy Office, and this bookmark asks us to

examine our own values, the life choices we make and our behaviour to achieve

equality for women and to stop violence. To help us do that, it offers tips for

both men and women, taken from the National Panel Report on Violence Against

Women. I urge you not only to read this bookmark, but to start acting on it

today.

I should take this opportunity to update you on the progress

of our provincial strategy on violence. As you may know, in March we published a

Report of the Consultations on Building a Provincial Strategy to Address

Violence. This report covers a series of five consultations which were held

across Newfoundland and Labrador last year. The purpose of these consultations

was to receive input on Government's Consultation paper and to look at ways

government and the community could work together to address the issues of

violence. We are now in the final stages of preparing a long-term strategy

against violence in our Province which we hope to make public in early 1995.

This is one way government is showing its commitment to

eliminating violence against women. I urge each of you to be a part of the

solution as well. While we are not responsible for the actions of men who commit

violent acts against women, we are responsible for what we say and do every day

that hinders equality and encourages violence. As we remember these fourteen

women today, let us also remember the many other women who are victims of

violence every day of the year. Let us continue to work together towards a

society where it is safe for women to walk alone in their own neighbourhoods;

where women can feel safe with their male partners, and where violence against

women is not tolerated. Let us work together towards a society that is truly

equal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to commend the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women for the statement she just made observing this National Day of

Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. I join with the minister in

urging all members to unite to try to reduce the incidence of violence against

women. The minister has recited stark and depressing statistics about the

prevalence of violence against women in our own midst here in Newfoundland and

Labrador and we pride ourselves in regarding our Province as a relatively safe

place in which to live.

The minister, I think quite correctly, points to the

underlying causes of violence against women as being the disparity in power

between women and men, a disparity that is quite obvious when you look around

this Chamber. I would like to join with the minister also in encouraging

everyone, particularly the male members of the House of Assembly, to attend the

memorial service at the Memorial University School of Music Recital Hall at 7:30

this evening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's East have

leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women and the Member for Humber East in acknowledging the importance

of this memorial day and the fact that this very extreme form of violence

against women ought not to be forgotten, but to remember also that it is an

extreme form, and the kind of violence that goes on every day in our society is

still there.

It wasn't very long ago, Mr. Speaker, that many spousal

assaults were regarded by police and by the community at large as domestic

matters and not worthy of prosecution. That has changed but a lot has not

changed in the attitudes of men towards women and the permission or tolerance of

minor forms of assault by a lot of people. I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that in one

of the schools recently a program to keep down the level of violence, to teach

children not to use fists in the playgrounds is one example of things that can

be done to change the culture. I would encourage the Minister of Education and

Training and all hon. members to support the development of a culture of safety

for women and everyone in society and urge the government to redouble its

efforts in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to apprise all hon. members today that the design work

for the proposed museum, archives, art gallery complex at the Fort Townshend

location is progressing favourably.

Mr. Speaker, now that the footprint of the proposed complex

has been established, I am pleased to note that it will not be necessary to

acquire the property on the corner of Bonaventure Avenue and Harvey Road known

as "The Observatory". This, of course, is contrary to a statement made by the

Chairman of the Newfoundland Historic Trust on November 18, and which has been

the source of many unfounded rumours about the property. It is unfortunate that

this statement, made just shortly after our announcement of the Fort Townshend

site, created such a negative reaction from members of the Newfoundland Heritage

community, not to mention the anxiety and inconvenience it must have caused the

present owner of the property.

Now that the planning process has positioned a building and

the square footage and programming for the Centre have been confirmed,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

first thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of the ministerial statement.

It is good news to hear that the government has succumbed to the public pressure

in relation to the home belonging to Dr. Thompson. I would ask now that they

have abandoned that idea that they would abandon the whole idea of constructing

the building at the Fort Townshend site. I would like to ask the minister; Has

he discussed it with the local archaeologists in the area? Because there is a

fair amount of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: - concern over the possibility the site

could be a cemetery. The embarrassment of the building will be nothing towards

the embarrassment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: - of digging up the cemetery, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has promised many

times in the past, as far back as last March, he will recall, on the televised

leaders' debate, that he would drop the idea or drop his efforts, I guess, to

privatize Newfoundland Hydro if the people opposed it. Lord knows they oppose

it. We've since discovered of course that $6.5 million continued to be spent in

preparing to sell off Hydro. We heard the other night on the news that David

Oake has been sent over to Britain, I guess, the land of the Rothschilds, to get

some more training. But prior to the opening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - you don't like that one, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is too bad. There is a lot that the

Premier isn't going to like by the time I'm finished. Prior to the opening of

the House of Assembly several media reports quoted government ministers as

saying that government would not be pursuing Hydro privatization. I want to ask

the Premier: Is that an accurate description of government's position now? That

it will not be pursuing Hydro privatization?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing that the hon. member has said

accurately reflects government's position or the position government has stated

in the past. It is a substantial distortion of it. At no time did I say the

government was dropping the privatizing of Hydro if the people opposed it. What

I did say, and I repeat again, is that the government would not ask the Liberal

majority in the House of Assembly to introduce legislation to force, to cause,

the privatization of Hydro to take place if the government was of the view that

the majority of the people of this Province strongly opposed it. That was the

circumstance at the time last spring, and it continued to be the circumstance

for some time. It is changing significantly, incidentally.

Let me state again, government still believes that that is in

the best interest of the people of this Province, and government still believes

that the people of this Province will realize that it is in their best interest,

and when that occurs we will proceed with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is

changing significantly is the Premier's position and his mind, because he

changes it every day, constantly, because already we have a contrary position.

Other ministers - the Government House Leader - said before

the House opened, you would not be pursuing Hydro privatization. I just ask the

Premier: Is that your position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I could ask him to wait for Hansard and

read it. I thought I made it very clear. The government's position is that we

would not ask this House of Assembly to proceed with the privatization of Hydro

unless we were satisfied that it no longer was opposed by the majority of people

of this Province.

Now, if we reach a point where it isn't opposed and we are

satisfied there is an adequate level of public support, the government still

feels that it is in the best interest of the people of this Province to proceed

with the privatization of Hydro, and that is open to us to consider in the

future.

As of this moment, no, Mr. Speaker, we are not proceeding

with it because we are not satisfied that it is not against the wishes of the

majority of people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Government

House Leader withdrew six bills from the Order Paper that will not be proceeded

with this fall, so in view of that fact, and in view of the fact that you don't

intend to proceed with Hydro privatization this fall - so we are told at least -

can the Premier explain why Bill 1 was not taken off the Order Paper along with

the other six?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is nothing wrong. It is not causing

the hon. member any headaches. It is not causing him to do anything different.

It is there on the Order Paper. Government decides its position on the Order

Paper and if, as, and when, we want to remove it, or we think it appropriate to

do so, we will. So long as we do not consider it appropriate to do so, we won't.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows that this House

can be recalled at any time. He knows that the House can open next spring

without having a new session. He knows this legislation, if it remains on the

Order Paper, will remain in its final stages, and he knows he can ram it through

the House with a couple of days notice using closure if he wants to, and that is

why he is leaving it on the Order Paper, without having to begin the debate all

over again, otherwise why does he not withdraw it? That is the simple question.

Why do you not withdraw it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, neither the comment nor the

question is worth pursuing.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that may be the view of the

Premier but fortunately it is not the view of the people of this Province, I do

not believe, and that is why I am asking the questions.

I know ministers opposite would love for me to go on to

something else but I am not going on to something else. I am asking the Premier

because the people of this Province have clearly indicated they are opposed to

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He knows that, and what we

are saying to him is if he wants to put the minds of the people at ease on this

issue, why does he not simply withdraw the bill from the Order Paper? It is no

big task. He just said himself it is not a big deal. Why do you not simply take

it off the Order Paper? If you want to pursue it sometime in the future bring it

back then and we will debate it at that time. Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the bill being on the Order

Paper is not hurting anybody and not causing anybody any harm. The people of

this Province have the government's commitment that we will not proceed with

further consideration of that bill in this House so long as the bill is opposed

by the majority of the people of this Province. We will not. It is not hurting

anybody. Stop the childishness and do something important.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is legalese words and tricks,

that is all it is. It is bothering people, Mr. Speaker. It is bothering some

people. It is bothering the majority of the people in the Province I would

suggest to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, let me get on to another aspect of this.

According to international reports from the Reuters News Agency the Premier has

been telling investors abroad that if he cannot privatize Hydro it will be fully

commercialized. Now, aside from that issue of commercialization about which we

want to have more details and we would like to hear a bit more about, last week

CBC's television program Hear and Now also reported that the Province was

considering leasing the running of a commercialized Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: That is the report that was on television. I

am asking the Premier. That was the report that was on television, the

government leasing the running of a fully commercialized Hydro to a private

company that would keep the profits even though the government would remain the

shareholder. I want to ask the Premier: Can he dismiss that story out of hand

and assure the House he is not pursuing that kind of an angle at all?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I recognize it as pure fiction. It was

never considered by government at any time and never considered by me. The only

time I ever heard the word mentioned was when I heard a young lady being

interviewed on CBC television, Susan Dyer being interviewed. It was the only

time I ever heard it mentioned. It is pure and utter fiction. I have never

considered it and never heard of it before. It is utter fiction.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. member because of the noise which is

mostly from his own side at the present time.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier,

the minister responsible for justice. Yesterday people in this Province were

both shocked and angered to hear that a dying woman's last wishes were not met.

That wish was that she could see her husband just one last time. This lady's

husband was an inmate at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Could the Premier tell the

House today why this woman's request was not met, and worse, why the request was

totally ignored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of

Justice informed me this morning of this matter and told me that an

investigation was underway to determine what happened, because the facts, as

they have been reported, appear to be contravening standard prison

administration policy in circumstances like this. It appears to be totally

inconsistent with the normal policy and a full investigation is being made.

I just had an interim note delivered to me now and while the

member was asking the question I was reading it and I have some preliminary

information but it is nothing that I would want to indicate to the House at this

stage. There is a recognition that there was a call received, that it went to a

certain person, then it went to another person and the matter is being pursued

beyond that. It may be that before I leave the House this afternoon I will have

more information and if I do, with the leave of the House, I would be quite

prepared to make it available but right at this moment I don't have full

information on it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Premier then explain why there is, as far as I'm concerned, a double standard in

our justice system today, one for the elite and one for the commoner? Could the

Premier also explain why one person can walk in, strap a monitor around his leg

and then walk free and why a woman's cry to see her husband one last time, could

not be met?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I think

the hon. member is not being fully frank with the matter. A couple of days ago I

also received a memorandum from the Deputy Minister of Justice - yesterday or

the day before, I have forgotten which, I guess it must have been yesterday - to

tell me that another concern had been raised because an individual who had been

sentenced to serve some time in jail had been immediately placed on, or nearly

immediately placed on, what is called temporary absence. One of the problems,

the Deputy Minister advised me of, that the department has, is that when the

court sentences people to serve certain types of sentences on weekends and so

on, there is a real problem with accommodations, the jail is overcrowded. I

think you have heard the minister explain this on a number of occasions. One of

the ways -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If members would just hold their seats for

a moment - one of the ways in which that is dealt with is by considering a list

of prisoners who are not a threat to anybody in society and providing for

temporary or restrained absences for those prisoners to accommodate that. This

is one of the things that they are doing. She sent me the memorandum and I wrote

instructions back to her yesterday as to a course that I felt the department

ought to follow in pursuing a more standardized policy in relation to this in

the future. I assume the deputy minister will be taking that into account and

will be moving on it fairly soon.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Premier make a commitment to the House today that everything will be done to

find out what really happened to this lady's request?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely, I thought I told the member

that that is in progress and I will find out fully. If I have it before I leave

the House this afternoon I will make it available with the consent of the House.

If I don't, then at the next possible opportunity it will be made available.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Minister of Social Services. Madame Minister, your department presently pays

day care for single parents on social assistance attending post-secondary

institutions but will not pay babysitting costs. I ask the minister if she

considers this a fair and equitable policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, thank you. With regard to your

question I certainly will be looking into all of the matters regarding day care

child care.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, day care is not usually an

option in most rural Newfoundland communities. I say to the minister that the

policy presently existing in her department is blatant discrimination against

single parents living in rural Newfoundland. I will ask the minister if she will

immediately correct this injustice and begin to treat all Newfoundlanders

equally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: I thought I made that clear that that is

certainly being reviewed within our department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Environment. Yesterday you as minister unveiled in this House

what you claim to be a new government policy on the importation of garbage. I

ask the minister, is this just a stand-alone policy, or will there be

legislation to enforce it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. I think the government has made a tremendous decision. I think the

government has made a decision to develop and bring in a policy that responds to

a major issue in the Province. At this point in time we don't believe we need

legislation. We think the policy is a strong one. It is one of the strongest in

Canada. We think it is going to deal with the concerns. So far the response has

been very good, but we are evolving policy issues in our department now, and in

government, and we look forward to seeing further development of policy. In this

area we think it is a very strong policy and we think it is going to get the

support of the people in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe the

minister answered the question but I will go on to another. The policy allows

the importation of garbage from the other Atlantic provinces for final disposal

in this Province. If there is no legislation and enforcement in all the Atlantic

provinces to prevent the importation of garbage from outside the region, how can

the minister ensure that the only garbage coming to the Province is produced in

Atlantic Canada? Without legislation and enforcement, isn't it more likely that

the Atlantic provinces will be an open door to dump garbage in this Province

from all over North America? What will stop it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what will stop them is the

policy we have. Very simply, the provinces in Atlantic Canada are taking care of

their own garbage. We are right now in this Province developing a waste

management strategy. We have done regional consultations this past fall. We will

be developing further initiatives to deal with our own waste. Within Atlantic

Canada we have already signed an agreement, an Atlantic Environmental Accord, to

deal with our Atlantic waste. What we've decided as a government, though, is

that waste from outside of the Atlantic jurisdiction, outside of the Canadian

jurisdiction, when it comes to importation for final disposal, won't be allowed

in this Province. I think it is one of the best policies in Canada. I think it

has overwhelming support from the people in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to differ

with the minister. The policy allows for reciprocal agreements for waste

disposal with other provinces outside the Atlantic provinces. Could the minister

give us an example of how that might work? Could little Newfoundland send all

its PCBs to Ontario, for example, in exchange for waste from big Ontario's

nuclear reactors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: You know, Mr. Speaker, I suppose if Alberta,

which has just decided to take PCBs from across Canada - they have an open mind,

they have decided, they have a regional facility to deal with PCBs. They have

just decided to take PCBs from outside their borders within Canada. They've

brought in a policy to deal with hazardous waste within Canada for this

particular type of hazardous waste.

We have PCBs in our Province. We have to find a way to deal

with them. So if within Canada we are going to have a closed mind to deal with

our own waste within Canada, then we might as well throw up our arms. What are

we going to do with it? The fact of the matter is, you can invent all kinds of

hypotheses that you want to. The fact of the matter is, this is one of the best

environmental policies of any provincial government in Canada. If you can come

up with one better, please tell us what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a question for

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board dealing with the Trans City proposal.

On July 9 1991 Cabinet issued a directive, MC 1066 of 1991, approving lease

financing arrangements generally, and stated: where it is available at an

equivalent or lower cost than the Province's capital market cost. Can the

minister tell us if that policy of Cabinet applies to the Trans City or to the

health centre proposals or was there a separate policy for those proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could spend some time

discussing a lot of other details surrounding that; however, that was the intent

of Cabinet, and that, ultimately, was what was done.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.

A few days ago, he tabled in the House some information

dealing with the lease back arrangements of the health care centres,

particularly the deal with Trans City Holdings. And he compared a fixed rental

rate or a fixed lease rate with a variable lease rate and showed us interest

rates of 9.61 per cent for fixed rental and 9.41 per cent for variable rental,

even though the variable rental cost in total $11.5 million more in real terms,

I think the minister tried to indicate in 1991 dollars. It sounds like an awful

difference to me and I would like to have that checked through, but accept what

the minister says. Anyway, he is showing us a rate of 9.41 per cent and he says

that this is based on present value of the rental, and that 1.52 per cent, the

rate had come down since the deal was made, because the government had the

option to lock in. They actually didn't lock in until 1993. And the rate, as we

saw from the bids, varied, Mr. Speaker, from 11.5 per cent to somewhere around

10.5 per cent or something - 15 per cent, rather, down to 11.5 per cent for the

actual bids. Is the minister telling us that this 9.4 per cent over that rate is

the best rate that was available?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, the 9.61 per cent, we couldn't do as

well ourselves. The 9.41 per cent was certainly much better than anything

available at that time and it was extremely beneficial to the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates that was

the best rate they could get and they couldn't do as well themselves. Would the

minister like to explain, therefore, the draft Cabinet paper, that was corrected

and a

section taken out? And there is a note here on this document that was

tabled in the court which says, `Omit this', and it says: `The Department of

Finance further advises, the Province currently has the opportunity to borrow

funds in the United States money market for 9 per cent for thirty years.'

Would the minister like to also deal with the press release

made by his former colleague, the former Minister of Finance on October 15,

1991, which shows that the government borrowed $200 million in the U.S. market

for thirty years at 9 per cent? Would the minister like to tell us why they did

not comply with the policy he just told us was confirmed and why they did not

immediately cancel all of those contracts and do what the committee had

recommended doing, which was to call tenders and build it yourself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: It will take a few minutes to answer, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman who asked the question was

also a Finance minister and I think he knows the answer, but it is going to take

some explaining.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the rate referred

to in the proposals had to do with the Bank of Canada long-term, thirty-year

rate, thirty-year bonds. You can get a certain rate within Canada; you buy in

Canadian dollars and you take no foreign exchange risks. Now quite often, in

every single borrowing that we do, we look around the world.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I suppose right now we

could borrow money in Japan for what, 3 per cent or 4 per cent, certainly 5 per

cent, but to do that, you would have to take the foreign exchange risk over that

period of time which is considerable. In the same way, every time you go to the

U.S. market, you have to take that foreign exchange risk, and there is always a

cushion built in - for instance, we don't go to the U.S. market unless we know

that there is a large cushion provided in comparison to the Canadian market, a

large cushion.

For instance, we wouldn't go to the U.S. market now to borrow

money, if we were in the market for money, unless their rates were so much

better than the Canadian rates that it would allow for a fairly large

depreciation in the Canadian dollar. So you can't compare the U.S. rates, the

Japanese rates or the Swiss rates with the Canadian rates; you simply cannot do

that. So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking in terms of the Canadian market, Canadian

rates with no foreign exchange risk. We always try to do that, it is the safest

way. And if, in fact, those numbers are correct - and I will check to see if

they are - if, at that time, we could have borrowed on the U.S. market at 9 per

cent or 9.1 per cent, or whatever it happens to be, then that would not have

provided enough of a cushion in comparison to the Canadian rate, because that

would then burden us with tens of millions of dollars extra in terms of foreign

exchange risks. So that, in essence, is the answer. You are comparing apples to

oranges, not apples to apples.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, a

further supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister trying to tell us that the .4 per cent in

real terms difference, plus the 1.52 per cent that it changed from the time you

made your decision until you actually locked it in - in other words, you had a 2

per cent cushion, plus you had a 60 per cent buy-back at the end of this

contract that you would not have had you built it yourself. How much of a

cushion do you want?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman asking the question, being

a former Finance Minister, also knows the answer to that. Had we gone to the

market ourselves and borrowed and borrowed at that time, and done this

ourselves, forgetting the rate problem - we couldn't have done as well with the

rates on the Canadian market - at the end of the thirty years, had we done it

ourselves, we would have still owed 100 per cent, not 60 per cent - 100 per cent

of that amount. We would have owed the total principal. The hon. member knows

the difference in what he is saying. Had we done it ourselves, we would not have

owed a 60 per cent value, we would have owed a 100 per cent value at the end of

that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Can we get the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation to leave again, Mr. Speaker?

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. A few days ago, the minister tabled a list of companies that have

received sea urchin processing licences, one of which was 3 T's Limited of Woody

Point. I want to ask the minister: Is the company's facility equipped and up to

standard to process sea urchins, and does it have a certificate of registration

issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that they are equipped to do such

processing, and that they are so registered.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary for the minister.

Is the company required to process a minimum tonnage of raw

material, and could the minister inform the House what the minimum tonnage would

be and how many jobs would be created in the processing of this raw material?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: In the past there has been a minimum tonnage

of - I don't recall exactly what the tonnage was. As far as the jobs are

concerned, with regard to the processing at this particular plant, I will have

to bring that information back to the House at some later date.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, a

final supplementary.

Could the minister inform the House, then, what other

conditions are attached to 3 T's sea urchin processing licence, and can the

minister confirm that the company has been given permission by his department to

ship whole, unprocessed sea urchins to Japan? I want to ask the minister: What

happened to the normal processing conditions and requirements, and what are we

really doing for providing employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? If

we are sincere about a fishery of the future, what are we really doing to

employment in this Province if we are allowing that to happen with a new

resource?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how many

questions were there. I gave up counting at the end of three, I think it was,

but let me assure this hon. House that we are sincere. We are sincere in

bringing this industry back into the position that it was in years ago, in a

position to serve the public, to generate jobs in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. HULAN: You know, for many years I worked in animal

research. I worked with rats, monkeys, turkeys - and every once in a while the

sounds coming from the opposite side of this Chamber remind me of the sounds

that I heard so many times before.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A quick question from the hon. the Member

for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is not for the minister responsible for animal

husbandry. I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Over the last number of years there has been considerable

work on the Trans-Canada Highway under various upgrading programs, including the

Roads for Rail agreement. I represent an area of the Province that has been

untouched by the Trans-Canada upgrading program; namely, the

section of the TCH

between Badger and the Baie Verte Junction has had no work done, under the

current program, at all - and this causes some concerns on the local scene - in

particular, the intersection at South Brook on the Trans-Canada.

I was wondering if the minister could bring me up to speed as

to whether or not this project is on the

schedule of projects as he indicated in

this House well over a year ago, and whether or not there is any hope that this

project could be done in the next little while. I've been writing him many

times. He has refused to answer my question on paper. I was wondering if he

would answer me in the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to tell the

hon. member what work we will be doing next year. That announcement will be made

probably in the next several days. When I am prepared to do that, I will make

the Ministerial Statement here in this hon. House and then the member will know

what is going to be done next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Department of Works, Services

and Transportation Act (No. 3)."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during Question

Period, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about whether or not I was

present at a Cabinet meeting on October 22, 1991, and I have determined that I

was indeed present. The Cabinet meeting took place in the Cabinet room for a

portion of it, and at Government House. It happened to have been the last day on

which the former Lieutenant-Governor McGrath was in office or around about the

time that he was ending his term of office. There was a Cabinet meeting at

Government House; it had started in the Cabinet Chamber and resumed at

Government House. I was there.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition on behalf of forty-seven people in my district. The petition reads:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, another petition is being brought forward to

this House on behalf of, not only my constituents, but indeed, on behalf of

constituents right across this Province. Several members on this side of the

House who have risen over the past couple of weeks to present these petitions,

are presenting them because there are people out in our districts who are in

desperate need of help. With only a few weeks away from Christmas, and due to

the difficult economic situation that this Province finds itself in, in relation

to the fishery, there are a number of people, especially in rural parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who are finding for the first time that they have to

resort to social assistance. I have heard over the past number of weeks several

stories from my district, as I am sure members opposite have also heard, in

relation to the tough financial situation that families are finding themselves

in, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only fair and proper that we rise each and every

day to make sure that the government keeps in the back of their minds the

importance of providing some type of an employment generation program for the

Province this year.

I was very pleased over the past couple of weeks, Mr.

Speaker, to learn that the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

has made a couple of trips west seeking some work for the people in this

Province, seeking some dollars to put a program together and I hope that his

efforts bring fruitful results over the next few days. Mr. Speaker, I am sure

that he would like to stand up in the House at any day now and announce

something, and I am sure that many people in Newfoundland and Labrador are

waiting for that announcement.

There are many, many people in our districts who have been

very pleased with the fact that they have been able to participate in the TAGS

program, and the NCARP program before that, but there were many people who were

left out in the cold because of being indirectly involved in the fishing

industry in rural Newfoundland, and I speak for many people whose names are

signed to this petition when I say that, Mr. Speaker. These were people who

worked in the stores, at the restaurants or at the gas stations, who had jobs

because of the fishing industry in their community. When the fishery closed,

those jobs went by the wayside. I think that in many communities in rural

Newfoundland, if we would be honest, we would say that they were 100 per cent

reliant on the fishery but not 100 per cent of the people were fortunate enough

to be part of the TAGS program.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, over the next few days, that the hon.

minister will receive some good news from Ottawa and that the Province will

throw some dollars into the pot and employ as many people as they can who are in

need of this short-term employment. I would be the first to say that this is not

the answer to all the problems that are in Newfoundland and Labrador at the

present time. I understand that, as I am sure the minister understands, but we

have to help people along the way. It is a major adjustment, from a fairly good

economy in relation to the fishing industry in the communities, to come down to

only a handful of people having work.

When I hear stories like the ones I have heard over the past

few weeks, I say that this short-term employment would help people get through

the year. And hopefully the entire Province will turn around over the next

couple of years and we won't have to be doing this every year.

The problem is, right now it is needed. I, myself, have

received somewhere close to 1,000 names of petitions from my district. While I

realize there is not enough money in the coffers of the Provincial or Federal

Government to employ all these people, hopefully some of these people will find

some work.

These community projects, as some people say - and when we

talk about the W5 program, or different programs, the national programs,

that come down and condemn those types of programs over the year, I am sure that

if we look around we could find some positive things that were done in our

communities in relation to these programs.

When I look around my district I can see fire halls,

community halls, cleanups, etcetera, that have been good for the community, have

been good for the people in the community, and have definitely been good overall

for the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. MANNING: I thank you for the opportunity to present

this petition, and I certainly hope the minister will have some good news in the

next few days.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few

words.

As we know, over the last few days we have heard quite a few

petitions, and rightfully so. I think every member has a responsibility to come

to this House and represent his district.

I want to compliment the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes,

because what I heard him say today is probably the most positive approach to

this problem that I have heard from members opposite since we started these

petitions, so I congratulate him. I think he has a good concept and a good

understanding of what needs to be done down the road; however, I, like him, am

very hopeful that by Friday at the latest we will have some word back. Again, as

I said, nothing would suit me more than to be able to stand in this hon. House

next week and announce a program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to

this petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, who represents a very rural riding, a riding that has been devastated by

the fishing failure in this Province.

He spoke concerning the people who are in dire need of

emergency funding to create some employment opportunities in his district. He

talked about the people who weren't covered under TAGS program, or the NCARP

program, but yet were still gainfully employed by servicing the fishing

industry, which is no longer there.

While the fisher people, themselves, have been given money

over the past few years - they have been paid money over the last few years as

compensation for the failure of the fishing industry - the people in the service

industry supporting that fishing industry have not been, and they find

themselves in dire need now of employment opportunity so that they can provide

the bare essentials of food and a roof over their heads for themselves and their

families. Now, that is not a tremendous amount to ask this government to

consider.

I find, even in my own district, a district that pays the

highest per capita taxes to the government of anywhere in this Province, we have

people in our district - I have people in my district - who are in need of

emergency employment. I have talked to people involved in a union movement, who

just recently told me of cases where people who were laid off three or four

years ago had found employment within the community at lower wage rates than

what they were accustomed to. They worked there for two or three years, and were

recalled to the mining industry last year and worked seven, eight, nine weeks,

and now find they cannot draw unemployment. Because of changes that this

government's cousins put in the Unemployment Insurance Act, these people cannot

draw unemployment now. They said they quit the first job that they worked at for

three years to go to work in their former high-paying professional jobs that

they had in the mining industry. They only got eight weeks. The mining company

said they were recalled to work but they didn't know for how long; after eight

weeks they were laid off and now find themselves unable to qualify for

unemployment insurance, after working three years and then eight weeks at the

mining company, because they quit this so-called "temporary" three-year job. And

that is unfair. These are just some of the people affected, that an emergency

employment program could benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to convince his colleagues

in Cabinet, to convince his friends in Cabinet, to stand with him to support

these people who are in such need to be able to provide food, because that is

all the unemployment insurance is going to be able to provide, just food and a

roof over the heads of themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge the minister to check with his

Ottawa cousins and to lobby them to change the UI Act. It is fundamentally

unfair and wrong for a person to lose his employment in the mining industry,

then be under-employed, if you will, receiving a lot less pay for three years,

then having to quit that job to go back to the mining industry and get laid off

after eight weeks. Then, because of changes advocated by this government and

made by their Liberal cousins in Ottawa, they find themselves unable to draw

unemployment insurance. This is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair to these

people, people who have spent probably eight or nine years in the mining

industry, produced a tremendous amount of revenue to this Province, paid a

tremendous amount of taxes to this Province, and find themselves abandoned by

the people here in St. John's and abandoned by their colleagues in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would convince

his colleagues to fund an emergency employment program and allow the people of

this Province to have some dignity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of 148 parents from a

section of Bonavista known as

Mockbeggar. Even though the petition is not put forward in the proper style that

we usually see here, I am sure it will be acceptable to the House. It reads:

`We, the residents of Mockbeggar, as indicated by our signatures below, hereby

request, through this petition, that the school board provide transportation for

students attending elementary school at Matthew Collegiate in Bonavista.'

Mr. Speaker, it is a situation, I suppose, where the school

board in Bonavista is abiding by the policy set forth by this government, in

that anybody living within 1.6 kilometres of a school is expected to walk to and

from that school. Mr. Speaker, this might work very well in areas like St.

John's, where you have sidewalks or other areas where people have the

opportunity to put their children in the car and take them on their way to work

and drop them off.

I think, instead of bringing in blanket policies such as

this, we should look at every individual case. I recall, in my own community, we

saw people walking to school within one kilometre and a bus half loaded passed

them by, not bothering to pick them up, and the same thing on the way home in

the afternoon. Now, the residents of this particular area of Mockbeggar have

students there who start school at four years old, having not quite reached

five, who have to navigate some very narrow streets.

Anybody who knows Bonavista, knows that when the snow starts

to fall, the streets get more and more narrow. The children have to pass several

intersections without any signals, and cross at least one, if not two, bridges

over pretty fast moving water. I know it is a real concern for the parents,

getting those four-and five-year-olds bundled up in the morning and sent off to

school, to see, sometimes, the school bus passing them by, seeing them being

denied access to the school transportation - and higher grades attending

Discovery Collegiate, the high school there, being able to hop aboard the bus

and be provided with transportation.

I call on the minister to look at this petition and to look

favourably upon the concerns of the 148 residents of this particular area. I

understand there are twenty-six schoolchildren involved, people in the

elementary grades, kindergarten, I, II and III. I ask that he would look at

changing the policy and arrange for those children to be picked up by the school

bus service that is offered in the area. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the petition

presented by my colleague on behalf of the residents of Mockbeggar. As the

minister knows, student transportation is one of the major services provided to

students in the Province by the Department of Education. With the exception of

Fogo, Wabush, Labrador City, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, where any student may be

bused between November 15 and April 15 of each year, school boards provide

transportation for students who reside more than 1.6 kilometres from the school

they attend. The exception is made for Labrador for very good reasons.

The Province provides transportation to about 65 per cent of

the total student population in the Province. The one exception is the students

of St. John's, or more particularly, certain sections of St. John's. The

sections of St. John's that amalgamated with the city of St. John's two years

ago - in Kilbride, Virginia Park and these areas - these students still get bus

transportation. The students who live in my district, Waterford - Kenmount,

particularly Cowan Heights, the students who live in the St. John's East

district, represented by my colleague to my right here, students from the

Battery, for example, who have to go three kilometres to Gonzaga to get to

school, these students do not get bus transportation.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the minister, on behalf of all

students of the Province, on behalf of the students in Cowan Heights, in the

Battery and parts of St. John's South, that we need to look at the

rationalization of the whole system.

Whereas we all agree that distance is a

factor, what we are saying is that distance thus far has been the exclusive

criterion. We need to look at factors other than distance as the sole criterion.

The example raised by my colleague today of the part of Bonavista called

Mockbeggar might be an example which would need some, shall we say, looking

into. Maybe it would qualify if the rules were changed a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, we know there is a feeling that the minister is

waiting for all the reforms to go ahead in education before he addresses the

issue of bus transportation. We know that many of the decisions of bus

transportation are political decisions. They are decisions that can be made

without reference to the ongoing negotiations between the government and the

churches. For example, there is no reason why the minister cannot negotiate with

the City of St. John's to solve the bus transportation of students within the

city of St. John's boundaries.

We say to the minister, the time has come for him to

establish a policy. It is the Department of Education which approves all bus

routes in this Province. While the negotiations with the churches are ongoing,

that should not be an impediment to the rationalization of school bus

transportation. In fact, we maintain that with the agreement recently

communicated to the Province in the Warren-Browne memorandum submitted to the

minister, we could be moving in on this particular issue.

It is our opinion that we do not need legislative changes or

amendments to the current legislation to enable the minister to give effect to

many changes in bus transportation in this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, we ask

the minister to consider this and implement strategies to rationalize bus

transportation at the earliest possible time.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have come to Orders of the

Day. As I said yesterday, and advised the House earlier, we will be asking Your

Honour to call the Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises bill, which

stands on today's Order Paper, Sir, as Order 23, it is Bill 51.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For

Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province", (Bill No. 51).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say to the House, it is with a considerable measure

of pleasure and pride that I rise today to move second reading of this bill. It

really is the culmination of five years of effort on the part of the government,

aimed at rebuilding the economy of this Province.

Over the previous decade or so, Mr. Speaker, the economy had

largely been devastated as we had come to rely more and more on federal

transfers and had become less and less productive, and kept requesting more and

more federal money, and more and more federal money came, and we became less and

less able to provide for ourselves. It became very obvious to us that we would

have to take major steps to restructure the economy if we were to stand any

chance of successfully rebuilding that economy, so that we could generate enough

economic activity to provide for the employment opportunities that our people

needed, as well as provide the revenue the government needed to provide public

services.

Mr. Speaker, the approach that we took really had three

components to it. The first was to do the re-organization in the structure of

government that was necessary to ensure that we put in place a system of

government and an economic climate and a structured economy that was conducive

to private sector investment that would allow for rebuilding. That took us a

considerable time. We started at the top by reducing the bloated Cabinet that

had been in place for a decade or so before, down from the twenty-three that it

was, ultimately to fourteen first, to start with; then, Mr. Speaker, we started

to deal with some of the other fundamental problems of our economy.

We started to restructure the pension structure, started to

restructure the Workers' Compensation legislation to bring that into line

because that, too, was a burden on the economy. We started, Mr. Speaker, to deal

with the finances of government which was the second component that we had to

deal with, because, Mr. Speaker, if government doesn't get its own finances in

order, and has to continue year after year increasing taxes to generate enough

revenue to manage its financial situation, then all it does is, it places a

greater burden on the economy.

Every dollar that we take out of the economy by direct orders

of legislation of this House, impairs the ability of the economy to regenerate

itself, so a fundamental, in terms of restructuring the economy is for

government to get its own finances in order. Unfortunately, we started to tackle

this problem at a time when it was the most difficult, at a time when all of

Canada was facing perhaps the worst recession since the great depression of the

1930s, at a time when the whole of the country was becoming increasingly

sensitive to the debt levels and at a time when it was necessary to stop the

burgeoning of our debt if we were to have a chance at salvaging our economic

future at all.

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been difficult. In this respect I

have to give the people of this Province full credit for not only accepting, but

in a subsequent election in endorsing the policy of the government to follow

this course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I give the people of the Province the

credit that they deserve in this regard because they recognized the necessity of

facing this tough situation and were prepared to do it, and endorsed the

policies of the government to achieve that objective.

I also, Mr. Speaker, must give the unions involved a measure

of credit. They did indeed resist the proposals for a time, but in fairness to

union leaderships you have to acknowledge that that is the normal political

responsibility that they have in giving leadership. You have to understand that

that is normally the course unions will follow. Perhaps they were a little bit

more aggressive in following that approach than we would have liked to have seen

them, but in the end I must give the unions and give the membership of the

unions the credit for, in the end, accepting what it was necessary for

government to do, and for, to some degree at least, working with government. The

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was the individual who had most of those

dealings with the unions, and I think he would probably endorse my giving a

measure of credit to the unions and the workers of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we brought our burgeoning

deficit under control to the point where working persistently with a known

objective we were able to bring it to the point where in this fiscal year that

we are now in it appears probable that we will now have a very small surplus on

current account. That is reaching our objective a little sooner than we had

anticipated.

That is not enough. We have to continue with that policy to

the point where we provide for absolute balance in our budget. Where we provide

for government carrying out the operational and capital responsibilities of the

government of this Province without borrowing any money whatsoever. It is

essential that we do that if we are to restore the credit worthiness of the

Province and to restore the financial integrity of the Province so that we can

go forward in rebuilding our economy for the benefit of the children of the

future. I give everybody involved in achieving that state of a surplus on

current account full credit. In particular I give the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board and the members of Treasury Board, as well as the senior public

service, full credit for the effort that they made in holding our costs under

control and making sure that we provided for continued maintenance of our

revenues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was the second major

contribution towards building a credible economic climate in which people -

investors and business people in particular - could be induced to invest.

The third component of it was to provide specifically for the

promotion and enhancement of economic development opportunities. In doing that

the key thing was creating the most favourable investment climate in Canada. We

set about that in an objective and planned way as well. We started to deal with

the basics. We started getting rid of the unnecessary and excessive regulations

that act only as a burden, an impediment, a delaying tactic, and in the end, an

unjustifiable cost of doing business in this Province. So much so that it makes

it more difficult for businesses to be successful, and it even acts as a

deterrent for investment in the first place. It was incumbent upon us to put in

place a process that would see the elimination of this unacceptable level of

regulations.

That is in course now, and the commissioner is in place and

doing his work. I have to say - and here again I give the senior public service

full credit. Because they identified a lot of unnecessary regulations that have

in the meantime been eliminated, and I give them credit for achieving that.

Another key area was bringing our tax levels down to

acceptable proportions. As Your Honour knows, over the last couple of years we

have managed to do that, reducing our general corporate tax rate from 17 per

cent down to 14 per cent as of January 1, three weeks from now, our corporate

manufacturing and processing rate down from 17 per cent to 5 percent, which is a

major drop and has attracted a great deal of interest.

We have also brought our small business corporate tax rate

down from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. We have greatly improved the mineral

exploration and mining tax circumstance, so much so that I think the Minister of

Natural Resources can confirm that we have caused a significant level of

increase in exploration activity in this Province at a time when exploration has

reduced in most other parts of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had a great year in ninety-four.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister just said we have had a great

exploration year in ninety-four, and I expect we will have an even better one in

ninety-five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We have taken steps, as I noted, to bring

the major problem that had been created in the previous ten years or so with

workers' compensation under control, and stop the growth in the unfunded

liability and start to bring the fund into balance, and to reduce the demands

and to, in fact, reduce the actual level of assessment in many sectors of our

economy to stop the growth that had taken place.

We are struggling with improving the labour relations climate

generally, and in particular the regulatory aspect of it. Instead of having five

or six different pieces of legislation that provide for the regulation of labour

relations in the Province, we hope to have a single labour code that we hope

will be able to be brought into effect after consultation with employers' groups

and employee and union groups throughout the Province over the next number of

months.

All of these things have made a significant contribution, and

if members want some idea of the level of contribution I will give them some

information from a publication that will be released publicly, I think, later

this week.

Everybody knows the impact of the closure of the fisheries in

this Province, and what it has cost, and how it has impacted the employment

opportunity for some 27,000 people. Now, notwithstanding that, we have been able

to keep our unemployment rate from increasing in the manner in which you would

otherwise expect it to have increased with that kind of impact in the groundfish

fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the figures show that when the fishing industry

is removed from the total employment, the strength of the rest of the

Newfoundland economy is clearly reflected in the fact that this Province

recorded the strongest employment growth in the country, at a rate of 4.7 per

cent in the third quarter of this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Recovery in the Newfoundland labour

markets continued in the third quarter despite the dampening effects of the

reduced activity in the fishery. Removing the fishery from total employment

reveals a gain of more than 4.7 per cent in the rest of the economy, the

strongest growth since 1989.

Mr. Speaker, the same is true over the previous two quarters.

When you take the fisheries out of it as a factor, we had a growth rate overall

of 3.4 per cent in those three quarters in employment, higher than the average

across the nation, and in the last quarter the highest of any province in

Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now what that says to me in no uncertain

terms is that what the government has been doing in building and implementing

these other policies on a steady and slow basis has been working. If this

Province has recorded that kind of economic growth in the remainder of its

economy other than the fishery, if we have done that, then that means that our

general policies are the right ones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And for the first time in two decades we

are seeing some real and genuine growth in this economy, and seeing some

restoration of our economic strength.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot just simply sit back and stop there. I

do not think it is enough for us to create the most favourable investment

climate in Canada. I think we have to take the kind of steps that will make

investment in Newfoundland and Labrador virtually irresistible and, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - that is what this bill is aimed at

doing, making investment in the Newfoundland economy irresistible.

Section 3, Mr. Speaker, sets out the qualifications of

corporations seeking to invest. Let me at the outset say, Mr. Speaker, so that -

and I sincerely hope that this appears as a headline in the paper or as a

headline item on the radio and television news. This bill is not aimed at

investment from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill is aimed at

investment, period, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And it is our sincerest wish, Mr. Speaker,

that enough of it comes from within this Province to provide jobs for all 50,000

people that are looking for jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: But I don't know - and in fact, Mr.

Speaker, I don't expect that it will come all from within this Province because

of our relatively weak level of capital in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, I want

to emphasize the point that this is not aimed at all at outside investment but

it does not preclude outside capital investment because we have such a weak

level of capital in the Province that we do need it.

Mr. Speaker, it sets the level of qualifications at what I

think is a reasonable basis. The original White Paper that we put out had a

number of suggestions put forward. It was put out as a White Paper so that it

would generate discussion of the issue, so that it would invite responses that

would make the proposal better. Mr. Speaker, we believe we got responses that

would make the proposal better and I think we have implemented all of those

responses.

We lowered the level of investment required from the original

$500,000 that was proposed to $300,000. We lowered the level of incremental

sales from 1 million as had been proposed to $500,000 and we changed the `and'

to `or' which provides for either as being a qualifier. Either qualification

would entitle the investor to this level of support and, Mr. Speaker, we altered

the requirement for jobs. Instead of ten full time jobs - because many

businesses in this Province are seasonal in their nature - what we provided for

was at least ten permanent jobs, even though some of those jobs could have a

seasonal aspect to it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we put forward now, in this

legislation, a threshold that is indeed acceptable. We also provided, Mr.

Speaker, for some brief alteration in the non-competition aspect of it - that

appears now, Mr. Speaker, in subsection 3 of

Section 3 -what this provides now

is that "Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a corporation shall not be

designated as an EDGE Corporation where the investment and business development

incentives that the corporation would be eligible for if designated would

provide the corporation with a direct competitive advantage over other

businesses or undertakings already established in the Province." What we want to

do, Mr. Speaker, is provide for the help if it does not adversely affect any

existing business in the Province, does not give a competitive advantage. We

don't want to do that because that would be unfair to our tax paying businesses

now.

Mr. Speaker, we also provided for the creation of a

public/private board. A board made up partly of representatives from the public

service and partly of representatives from the private sector to be the

evaluation board that would evaluate each proposal. We think that this would be

the best way to do it rather than the process that we had put forward in the

original White Paper. This came about as the result of some recommendations that

we received from outside interests, Mr. Speaker, and we put it forward now for

consideration by the House.

With respect to the taxation exemption, Mr. Speaker, we have

essentially maintained what was proposed, that there would be total exemption

from the primary provincial taxes applicable to businesses except those taxes

that might be said to be taxes for level of usage, like, for example, gasoline

or diesel fuel taxes.

One company might use $100 worth of taxes and another company

$100,000 worth of taxes, but that would be because that other company was using

the highways in the process and it is not unfair to expect some level of

contribution for that, so we structured it in that way, Mr. Speaker, to provide

for exemption from the Income Tax Act, from the Health and Post-secondary

Education Tax Act and from the Retail Sales Tax Act.

We also provided, Mr. Speaker for exemption for a full

ten-year period and then a five further years to phase in tax responsibility, so

instead of going from total exemption in year ten to 100 per cent of tax

responsibility in year eleven, you would only have 20 per cent in year eleven,

40 per cent in year twelve and so on until you got to full taxation

responsibility in the fifteenth year.

Mr. Speaker, we also provided for a similar exemption from

certain municipal tax. We had originally, in the original piece of legislation

provided that municipalities that wanted to, could choose either to provide

total exemption from municipal business and property tax or no exemption at all,

but they could not manipulate and vary the levels of taxes. The federation

recommended to us that while they appreciated and understood the reason for

that, what they felt would be better, is if we provided for a municipality

having the right to exempt one or other, business tax or property tax or both,

to give a municipality the right to maintain a property tax if it wished to do

so, and we thought on balance, Mr. Speaker, that this was alright, any

municipality that wished to do so could do that.

We also provide for start-up incentives. Mr. Speaker, this is

intended to assist new companies to overcome the difficulties during the

start-up period, bring productivity up to an acceptable level and overcome

normal difficulties that you would get first starting up a business. We thought

this would be appropriate in the circumstance because it is well known that when

you start up a business, particularly if it is new investors coming in from

outside, they are not familiar with the workforce or work habits or

characteristics and so on, they could have extra burdens and we thought it not

unreasonable to provide for this level of support, and I should explain to the

House, Mr. Speaker, how that figure was arrived at.

The figure of $2,000 that's arrived at, that is provided for

in that, was estimated to be the tax return that the provincial government would

get from one individual employee during one year, so what we are giving up

essentially, is the income tax that one employee would pay during one year on

average, and we thought that that was a small price to pay to get that person a

job that provided for income for the person and we get income tax from them

after that, that is where it came from and that is the idea behind it, Mr.

Speaker.

I am sorry, there was one other exemption that I had not

mentioned in terms of tax exemptions. This legislation now contains an

additional provision that was not in the White Paper that will give the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the power, when the economic zones are properly

structured and in place and we have proper statistics in relation to it, to

provide for increasing the basic ten-year exemption period by one, two, three,

four or five years depending upon the level of unemployment in a particular

zone. We did not spell it all out in detail, we felt it should be provided for

in regulation but I will tell the House what the government has in mind, that we

would provide something of this nature. This is just by way of example.

An additional one year of basic exemption for every 5

percentage points by which the unemployment rate in a particular economic zone

exceeded the provincial average; so if the provincial average was 20 per cent

and a particular zone had a 25 per cent unemployment rate, we could go to eleven

basic years. If the economic zone in which a company was prepared to start up

had an unemployment rate of 55 per cent in the preceding five years, not just a

one-shot thing but on a consistent basis over the preceding five years, had an

unemployment rate of 55 per cent then we could go to the full additional five

years and give a basic exemption of 15 years.

The reason for that is to provide the inducement for

companies to invest in those areas of the Province that have the highest level

of unemployment and have the greatest need for employment opportunity. Our

objective is to make sure that economic activity takes place within the

Province. We do not want to say no to somebody because they want to set up in

Grand Falls, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, or Carbonear. We do not want to say no

to somebody because of that. If they want to do it that is fine, they are

entitled to the basic benefit, but if they are prepared to go to the Burin

Peninsula, to the Great Northern Peninsula, or to certain other parts of the

Southwest Coast of this Province, or the Port au Port Peninsula, where the

unemployment rate is 60 or 70 per cent, then we should be prepared to provide

the additional that will act as an inducement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That is the reason why that was put there.

Mr. Speaker, I will wind up fairly quickly now. The

legislation also provides for a couple of other things, the making available of

raw Crown land. Where there is developed land, commercially developed and

available, that should be land that is used and businesses should be expected to

invest in that, but if there is no suitable developed land available we should

provide the raw undeveloped Crown land, in respect of which the government has

had no direct cost for development. We should provide that on a fifty year lease

at nominal cost and include the right to acquire full title to it when the terms

of the contract have been met after the ten or fifteen year period, or twenty

year period, whatever was appropriate.

The final benefit is to provide for facilitators. Now,

frankly I think this will make a major contribution. The public service, through

no fault of their own, and here I am not seeking to blame the public service, at

the same time we expect them to do things to promote economic development we

impose on them the responsibility to make sure they do not do anything to

excess, or give somebody benefits they should not have, and so on, so we are

giving them constantly a mixed message and they are under pressure to be very

scrupulous and disciplined in what they do, and that very often results in the

retardation of proposals going through the public service.

Mr. Speaker, we want to provide for facilitators. We have not

come to final conclusions on this yet, but we think we should probably think in

terms of having one in Western Newfoundland, one somewhere in Central

Newfoundland, and at least a couple or so in St. John's to start with. Now, we

do not know if this can best be done by providing for paying a fee for outside

private sector people doing it, that may well be, get consultants or contractors

to do it. That is one possible way of doing it although I am a bit apprehensive

about where the cost of that might go.

It might be best if we simply entered into a contractual

arrangement for a period of a year or two, or three, rather than creating new

positions in the public service that we may have to let go, so we are giving

some thought to that position as to how it might work. It might be that it might

work best by private contracting from outside. We are going to try and take a

look at the cost that would be involved in that and look at how we can best

handle it.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee to the House of Assembly that

this legislation is going to cause a sudden major increase in employment in this

Province, but I can say to the House that since we brought this White Paper

forward last June we have had a very large number of enquiries from all over the

world with respect to the opportunity. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount nods.

I expect he has had some of them himself, and everybody has.

Mr. Speaker, we think it is a good, sound idea. We think it

is what we need to make investment in this Province irresistible to people. I

can say to the House that this morning I was on the phone talking to a person

interested in the establishment of a business in this Province. He was not

himself involved but he was dealing with establishment by others of a business

in this Province that would provide several hundred jobs. What he wanted to know

was: Is this legislation through? The people involved were asking him was this

legislation through. That is the level of importance it has received.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we move quickly

and expeditiously. I am going to ask the House to move very quickly now to put

this legislation in place so that we can start without delay. As soon as we get

by the Christmas season we can start promoting on the basis of: This is now the

law. This is what is available to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to move

through it expeditiously. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition I

gather wishes to respond to the Premier - that is appropriate, given the

importance of this bill - and apparently would prefer not to speak today. I

gather the communications that I had sent both here and behind the Chair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying in this

House for several days that the EDGE bill would be called on Tuesday.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not trying to blame anybody.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: But I'm just saying I have said here in the

House several times the bill would be called on Tuesday. Even so -

PREMIER WELLS: Other members might want to speak.

MR. ROBERTS: - if there is nobody else who wants to speak

on the matter, we can adjourn the debate, we can carry it on for a bit, or we

can call the Kruger bill, which is one that the House has begun second reading

on.

We want to carry on with it, but the Leader of the Opposition

has the right to respond. If somebody wants to move (inaudible) we would carry

on with Kruger and deal with the Kruger bill and hopefully clue it up today.

Then we will come back on Thursday to the EDGE bill. But we did say quite

clearly we would call the EDGE bill on Tuesday. I can get out the Hansards and

show it, but we are willing to try to oblige the Opposition. If somebody wants

to speak and the Leader of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Somebody should adjourn the debate unless

they want to carry on with it. Somebody on that side has to adjourn the debate

for the Leader of the Opposition who is not in his chair.

PREMIER WELLS: Do you want to carry on with the debate or

adjourn it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I adjourn debate on Bill No.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if it is helpful to accommodate. Is

he ready to speak now?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, alright. I was going to say, if it

was helpful I would be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few brief

words. There was a little bit of confusion on our part, I guess, or whatever. We

understood the Kruger bill was going to be introduced.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I understood that.

MR. SIMMS: Or our House Leader. He was away last week for

a couple of days and the communication that went to the Deputy House Leader and

back and so on and so forth got mixed up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) deputy deputy House Leader

who is not here.

MR. SIMMS: Who is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Now

that the minister mentions it. It is the Member for Burin - Placentia West, he

is the one who is responsible for this gigantic mix-up.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is not that I couldn't make

some comments but I would like to have a closer look at it again just to prepare

a little bit more than I would be prepared today. I appreciate the agreement and

the opportunity to defer my response to the legislation for Thursday, I presume.

Is it Thursday? Or you haven't agreed.

MR. ROBERTS: It is my intention to call it on Thursday,

yes.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, I appreciate that. In that light I move

the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I wonder if we might have leave

to revert to Motions 3 to 6? Simply to move those bills in so those which are

printed can be distributed to members and members can have a look at them. Once

that is done I will ask Your Honour to call the Kruger bill which is Order No.

22, Bill No. 42. But the Motions 3 through 6 first, if we could. We will need

leave for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have leave?

Leave granted.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act

(No.3)," carried. (Bill No. 59).

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Recording Of Evidence Act," carried. (Bill No. 60)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Reductions Of Pension Contributions By

Employees In the Public Sector," carried. (Bill No. 58)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies

Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act," carried. (Bill No. 61)

On motion, Bills No. 59, 60, 58 and 61 read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, call Order 22, please, the

adjourned debate on the Kruger bill. I am not sure whether my friend from Baie

Verte - White Bay had finished or not.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a few minutes yesterday. I would just like to make

a few concluding remarks, I guess, about this particular bill, and first of all

to just reiterate the point that we made yesterday that in principle we do

support the bill and it is timely for that. Also, the point why we support it is

the security of wood supply, which anybody would support in these times, the

security of wood supply not just to Kruger, which this bill pertains to, but

also the security of wood supply for Abitibi, and the security of wood supply

for anybody in the forestry sector of this Province.

In principle, as I said yesterday, we all support the

principle of this particular bill and the security of wood supply. We have no

problem with that. The one aside point to that we mentioned yesterday, and I am

sure my other two colleagues will go into depth on a few points that we raised

yesterday. I have already quoted them to the minister, and I think he made note

of them. I will just do it again. It is page 5,

section 1(e), page 11,

section

8(d), and page 12,

section 8(e). I think the minister has made note of them and

he will make some points with them and elaborate on them as he goes through.

I also know that my two colleagues have some specific points

specifically pertaining to the Pasadena road highway, and the implication that

this bill might have for that, and also the implication that it may have as far

as municipal boundaries pertaining to the communities of Corner Brook, Deer Lake

and Pasadena, so I think those we will get into more specifically with my two

other colleagues who are about to speak on this.

Mr. Speaker, I do say that we do support the bill in general.

I also make a note, too, that we also realize this was a convenient method for

the government to put into the hands of Kruger another $15 million, which I am

sure they will be glad to take off the hands of government. It will help them in

their ongoing process in the wood sector, but we also have to realize that

Abitibi, another large company in this Province, and also the private sawmillers

and everybody else in this Province also have vested interest in the security of

wood supply for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: My time is up?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments on this Bill 42. I would

like to say from the outset that when I first looked at this particular piece of

legislation, in consultation with the minister, I figured that not only could I

support the principle of the bill, but I could support the contents of the bill

plus all the exhibits that went with it and so on.

Now the more I studied the exhibits and the correspondence

that went along with the bill - because really the purpose of this bill is set

out in the

long title, and that certainly needs a lot of explanation - one of

the concerns I would like to bring up right away, especially since the Premier

is here, and the minister responsible for forestry, is an

article or a

section

in the agreement that says that they will not relinquish - I will read the exact

section, Mr. Speaker. In the principle agreement, page 4, it says: All is more

particularly shown on the map attached as

schedule A - I will go into that a

little further down - but excepting therefrom such of those lands in urban areas

of the City of Corner Brook and the towns of Deer Lake and Pasadena as are

described on the maps attached as

schedule B.

I've been looking around for

schedule B. I don't see a

schedule B. I look at maps there with regard to Lots 100 and Lots 56, I look at

schedule A, I look at different exhibits. There are exhibits 1, 2-1, 3-1, and so

on, 2-3. But there is one very important

section on page 4 that I cannot, unless

the minister can give me some assurance, something to allay the fears on which I

base my judgement on this particular paragraph, that is the exempting therefrom

for the urban areas in Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Pasadena.

I don't know if any other members in the House of Assembly

have had any experience over the years with people in their districts not being

able to acquire title to their properties for residential purposes. I've been

dealing with this for years all around my district in White Bay, White Bay

South, in the Spillway, Deer Lake, Nicholsville, Howley, Cormack, Reidville

areas, and also down through Humber Valley. I understand there are some down in

Pasadena, and even references made in this agreement to the old Hammond farm

property. That is another question that I have to get to.

I have people who got their land years ago, bought their land

from Bowater's, and they never got it registered. When the land transferred to

Kruger even some of that land, when bought from Kruger, was not registered. What

happens when they go get title and want to go get a mortgage and want to go get

renovations to their buildings or whatever? They can't get title to the

property. I mentioned this I think to the Premier, if he has a minute, one time

at the airport this year. We were talking about it there for a few minutes at

the airport one evening going out. Now that he is here, this is why I would like

to talk about this particular section, where the urban areas of the City of

Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Pasadena are still exempt from this.

I can understand that, like I just said, any lands that were

bought through Kruger or Bowater's, they will be looked after under this

agreement. Because of the fact that it was sold beforehand those particular

agreements will be honoured. I say to the Premier and the minister: What happens

after this agreement goes through? It is a real nightmare up my way. The town of

Deer lake, for instance. They have sections of the town that are owned by Kruger

they can't develop. There is one

section there, fifteen acres, another

section

eight acres, another

section ten acres, and as you know Kruger bankers wouldn't

let it go because they held it as collateral so you couldn't get title to it.

Under this agreement, the articles that I've gone through -

I've gone through this in the back here, all those sections of land that were

sold over the years and so on, my understanding is that they will be looked

after under this agreement. Even if they are not a part of Reid Lots they will

be looked after. That is the understanding the minister gave me. But any lands

that are in Corner Brook, Deer Lake or Pasadena that are not registered, or with

no bill of sale or anything like that, then they stay with Kruger.

For an example, if the town of Deer Lake tomorrow for

instance wanted to put their lagoon system or put an industrial park, or someone

came in to build a Tim Horton's or anything else, wanted that particular piece

of land, then they can't get it. Unless through the good graces of Kruger and

their banks they release it. That is the only way that they will let it go. That

is what they are doing now, sometimes they will release it, sometimes they

won't. They say the banks have it as collateral and they will not look at a

person for residential in any case, although I have looked through all the sales

here and I have noticed some sales over the past six or seven years that Kruger

did make to some fairly high profile people in the Corner Brook area with no

problem, that is what I cannot understand about it.

I have three people in Deer Lake today who got monies from

the banks, cannot get title to their property, cannot get title whatsoever,

cannot sell because their land, for instance, is on a part of Kruger. It is just

six inches, a foot or two feet on a part of Kruger or whatever and they cannot

get title to their property. Now that is one of the concerns I have with this

section. The rest of it I know will be covered but anything - my understanding

is, and I want to get it quite clear, that anything that is not listed here will

not be covered under this agreement and, Mr. Speaker, that in my area, means an

awful lot.

Now under another

schedule there or in the agreement it talks

about the $15 million. There was $7 million for the last fiscal year and $7.5

for the next fiscal year that will come out of the consolidated revenue fund and

go to Kruger for the purchase of the 300-and-some-odd thousand hectares of land

that was in this agreement or 272 thousand hectares of land that was in this

agreement but in the indenture - another question I have, well the minister is

not here now so the Premier can answer - why in the indenture is the $15 million

not mentioned? It is mentioned in the agreement but it is not in the indenture

and the indenture is usually the one that gets registered. The $15 million is

mentioned in the principle agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, well this is it but usually when an

individual has a house, a piece of land or anything, you go get it registered.

If it is a gift you usually say I gave it to so and so for the price of one

dollar. That is usually treated as a gift and then the department puts a fair

market value on that and they put a price on it for registration. Now that

thought crossed my mind -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is the explanation,

that government don't charge themselves registration. I don't know but I mean

when I looked at the agreement and looked at the indenture for one dollar, that

made me question it, that's all. I was used to dealing with land over the years,

being on council and so on and with my own properties, and that was always a

question that came up and more so today because the price of registration today

is gone way up. If there is another reason - I mean it is a legitimate sale - if

it is in the agreement for $15 million and the government is not charging

themselves registration fees well then maybe that is the explanation but I don't

know. There might be something else to it.

Now if the Premier would answer those couple of questions,

because I have more here. If he wants to answer those couple of questions, I

will yield.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will

just answer those questions.

The member was concerned that lands in Corner Brook, Deer

Lake and Pasadena would not now be available because they would be under the

control of the company.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: They are now and they are going to remain

under the control of the company, yes, and he is concerned about that. The other

lands that will be coming to us will be Crown lands and like any other Crown

land anybody who wants it can apply for it and ultimately it will simply go into

the bank of Crown lands and be managed under the Crown Lands Act, except to the

extent that there are obligations honoured in respect to the supply of wood, the

member understands that.

The request to keep lands in Corner Brook, Deer Lake and

Pasadena were for operational reasons of the company. The company does not own

any more land in Corner Brook other than lands pretty well in the vicinity of

the mill and going up by Corner Brook stream up to Watson's Brook and where

their water-pipe line is and the lands around the Glynmill Inn Pond, all the

lands in Corner Brook that the company own were gone except such as have already

been divested or leased. I think the only block of land that the company would

be left with that is under lease, is the Blow-Me-Down Golf Club; I think that

was leased and I don't know for how many years but it was leased as far as I

know in Bowaters' days to Blow-Me-Down, but there will be no real quantity of

land left in Corner Brook. They might own something up by Riverside Drive too,

but those are things that they use in connecting with their operational purposes

and in the ordinary course, they wouldn't be selling those lands.

The same applies to Deer Lake. Now not all lands in Deer Lake

are not being transferred. There are some lands in Deer Lake being transferred,

as the hon. member knows. My recollection is that there are some, the only ones

that are inside of a certain area that the company considers it could have a

conceivable operational need for and, it is important to us to keep that company

in good operating circumstances because it is responsible for many hundreds of

jobs in this Province, so the government has no wish to do anything to impair

the operational ability of that company and the same applies to some land in

Pasadena. The company and their woods operations over the years had some lands

in Pasadena that they have held, but it is a relatively small amount of land -

MS. VERGE: But where is

schedule B (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: Where is what?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If I can have the agreement, I will look

for it but it has all been tabled. In the meantime, while he is getting that,

let me go to another couple of points.

The member says you cannot get title from Kruger Inc. Well,

that is not exactly correct. The member also identified some where people did

get title, he had a list. He had a list of conveyances out, so there were a lot

of conveyances out of the lands that were otherwise described as being

transferred to the government and that exemption, that list is provided, the

member has it, and so he knows.

Now, there is going to be, over a period of the next number

of months, there is going to have to be a fair amount of survey work to put all

that in order and make sure that the lands that are vested in the Crown are

properly described and we know exactly what we are talking about, but what is in

that agreement is, agreement in principle, and that list that has been provided

I believe is a list of conveyances that the company has made out of these Reid

lots, so there are exemptions from the conveyance of the generally described

Reid lots; so they have notified the government of the list of all of these

conveyances, and the Crown lands people will ultimately get all the meets and

bounds and put that on plans and have in place so they know exactly what we are

dealing with.

Kruger Inc., like Bowater before it, mortgaged its lands and

assets to secure bank financing. I remember when you couldn't get a piece of

land in Corner Brook until you sent a deed to England to be endorsed by the

White Hall Trust, by the Royal Trust Company and by eight or ten other trust

companies who were trustees for various bond holders and so on. The company

couldn't sell a single piece of land and many of the old title deeds in Corner

Brook will have all of those signatories in order to release them from the terms

of the mortgage.

Now, it was complex and it took a lengthy period of time to

go and get these kinds of approvals and my guess is, Kruger Inc. were

encountering similar difficulties. There are a number of people who have simply

squat on company lands and are claiming titles as squatters. Whether they are

entitled to it or not remains to be seen, but those people probably couldn't get

a deed simply because they didn't negotiate the purchase of the land, they squat

on the land. This is not new. This did not happen just in recent years. It

happened, too, when Bowaters were there, so there may be problems of that nature

that government is going to have to deal with. I think the company alerted the

government, if I recall correctly, to a number of people who were in possession

of certain blocks of company land without having any titled deeds, so there are

a number of people illegally occupying certain blocks of land and government is

going to have to deal with that issue as well.

The other question the member asked is why the value was not

mentioned in the conveyance? It is totally unnecessary where you are not

required to register it and very often you do it just for a dollar. Now, the

whole world knows that government is paying $15 million for these lands, so the

mere fact that it is done for $1 is not at all unusual. Many conveyances have

that in it. Even where the consideration is actual and is between private

parties, and there is an actual consideration, they may well express the

consideration to be for $1 and then file an affidavit of value for purposes of

determining the registration fee.

Mr. Speaker, I say the hon. member does not need to concern

himself unduly on that account. There is nothing of any great significance in it

one way or the other. Those are the things he mentioned that I jotted down. If

there is something else I missed I would be happy to try and answer it for him,

but those are the things he mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this in speaking to it, if the

member will allow me. I think it is a good deal for the Province. A hundred

years ago when the government of the day was building the railway and they

followed the Canadian Pacific precedent of giving 500 acres of land for every

mile of railroad that was built they gave away an awful lot of the land of this

Province. In fact the Bowater Company had control over 20 per cent of the

surface of the Island part of this Province. When they had all the licenses they

had required and all the Crown lands it amounted to the right to manage 20 per

cent of the surface lands of this Province. That was unacceptable.

The former government here in the Province made a wise

acquisition when they acquired from the Reid companies title to a major portion

of the Reid lands that were not held by the paper companies. From the Reid

companies they acquired pretty well all they held, as I recall, correctly. I do

not think they got the mineral rights but they got all the surface rights and I

think that was a sound thing to have done.

This proposal, Mr. Speaker, is of exactly the same nature. We

are now re-acquiring for Crown purposes all of the remaining Reid lands that had

been transferred to the original woods company. I think it is a very sound

investment for the people of this Province for the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the

section in there with regards to Kruger. If the minister or the Premier can tell

me that the only lands they are going to keep in Deer Lake, for instance, is

around the transmission lines, the right of way, the main dam, the canal, and so

on, but I have a funny feeling that the other lands in Deer Lake will not be

released.

Now, they could be on this

Schedule B because it refers to

Schedule B and I do not see it. It is not in my package. I cannot find it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With the hon. member's permission,

Schedule B was maps. That is why people did not get copies of them.

Schedule

B(2), B(3), and B(1) is the area around Corner Brook and it shows the municipal

boundaries of Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: All of Corner Brook?

PREMIER WELLS: It is all of Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: Is it all of Pasadena?

PREMIER WELLS: No, there is nothing in Pasadena at all.

What was formerly known as Pasadena it's in part of South Brook. It is all

Pasadena now but it is two original grants in South Brook, the remaining land

they own in those two original grants. The pink area is the Pasadena area on the

topographical map. It is the lands down by the water side, the remaining lands

that they own down there, and in the case of Deer Lake it is the land that is on

- I can show the hon. member a copy of it - it is pretty well all around the

Deer Lake area. Anything they own within the municipal boundaries of the Town of

Deer Lake they are keeping and the line, I believe, is the Trans-Canada Highway.

Everything on the community of Deer Lake side of the Trans-Canada Highway they

are keeping, and everything within the city limits - that is not quite right -

the city limits of Corner Brook are larger than this. It is everything that is

within an area - I am not sure what those boundaries really represent, but it is

not the full city limits of Corner Brook. It is everything within the urban area

of Corner Brook, which is the way it was described.

They don't own a whole lot, except the valley up through

where they run the water system and have the water supply system for the mill,

and the tank farm on Mount Bernard Avenue and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: The question still remains. Now, it is

obvious that they weren't in the packages that we got -

Schedule B wasn't in

there, and that pertained to the three maps for each community - but why would

they want to keep all the land in the Town of Deer Lake? I can understand them

keeping the limits up to the canal, the Junction Brook section, the transmission

line section. I can understand the power house section. Why would they want to

keep all the lands that are undeveloped in the Town of Deer Lake and not let

them go?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, by leave.

PREMIER WELLS: It is fairly simple. The proposition that

they put to us was this: We don't know what next year, or the next year, or the

next year may bring in terms of what our operational requirements will be. We

may need some of that land on Riverside Drive in Corner Brook, or Mount Bernard

Avenue in Corner Brook, or up the valley. We may need some of that land that is

in the Town of Deer Lake in connection with our operation. They have a big

operation in Deer Lake, both woods and power operations focused out of Deer

Lake. We don't know what tomorrow or next year or the next decade may bring, and

we need to have those lands available to us so as not to impair our ability to

expand. They have them all now. I don't see any reason why the government should

have pressed them to get those lands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: With all due respect, the lands that are

undeveloped in Deer Lake and owned by Kruger they will never use if they stay

there for the next 200 years. The land around the power house, yes, but the rest

out in the Town of Deer Lake, they are even closing places down, the old

Bowaters building and Kruger stores in Deer Lake now are closed out and up for

sale, so the rationale for not including this in that particular... I can

understand, like I said, all around the power house there, no problem, but the

rationale for not including the stuff that is far removed from any development

in Deer Lake as it pertains to Kruger should have been excluded in this package.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, by leave.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to tell the member, don't forget,

this was a negotiated arrangement. This wasn't us passing a law saying, this

must be included. This was negotiated between the two parties, the government on

the one side and the company on the other, and it had to be reached by

agreement. That was the proposition that the company put, and that was the

argument they put to government. Now, their argument may not hold water, they

may never have anything, but that was the negotiated position. We think that the

end result was a good deal overall for the Province. That was the negotiated

result, and that is the position the company wanted to take.

They also wanted to include Gander and one other and we said:

That's irrational; you're not going to have any kind of operation in Gander, and

we persuaded them of that, and Gander was excluded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other

things there that I would like to refer to, but this one here is very important,

I know, to the people and the council in Deer Lake, and the business people. To

try to expand in Deer Lake, you know what happens in any municipality today when

you go outside your boundary; you can't expand. To be perfectly honest about it,

I cannot support an agreement or a piece of legislation that is still going to

tie up and bound and keep the Town of Deer Lake from expanding, I just cannot do

it. That is what is going to happen. The Premier might shake his head and so on,

but it is going to happen.

The irony in this, though, is: How come, in number 7 on page

9, we looked after the Hammond Farm property? That is all looked after. We put

that in the form of a lease to be negotiated again in the year 2008. It is there

since Fishers had it. We can go back to the time the Fisher people had it there.

Now, it is all out and that is looked after. Everything else is looked after

with regard to the Gander proposition, the main dam proposition, the Corner

Brook, Pasadena.... This is the only one that is in there that could be

detrimental to a community.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if I can -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With the hon. member's leave. The Hammond

farm wasn't looked after in the manner in which the hon. member says. Let me

remind the hon. member what the situation is.

The people who had the lease from Bowater on Hammond Farm

exercised their option to purchase. The lease contained a right to acquire the

property if the company ever decided to sell it. When it was being sold to the

government, they exercised their option to purchase. They have put forward a

purchase price that government thinks is unrealistic and we told the company we

weren't prepared to accept it. So the Hammond farm goes to government, but an

option to purchase has already been exercised. There is no agreement on the

right of it - that is what the Hammond farm situation is.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. I have to go, due to

other (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, then, I say to the minister

and members opposite that if it was good enough to negotiate an agreement with

the people who own Hammond farm, it should have been good enough to negotiate an

agreement for the lands that are owned by Kruger in the town of Deer Lake, and

anything else that could be detrimental to any.... Now, I don't know about

Corner Brook, I don't know about Pasadena, when it comes to being detrimental to

development, but in the town of Deer Lake, it is not only detrimental to

development, it is detrimental to some people who have houses there.

I notice in this agreement, in the package also, that in the

back of this package all those conveyances, acquisitions and grants that were

done over the years from back in 1923 up to and including 1986 - 1987, some -

there is also a list in the back, of the land transactions that are partially

completed. Now, it is incumbent, I would say, on Kruger, to complete those

transactions. If that is part of the agreement, I would say also - and the

minister can confirm this - that it is only the ones that are listed that it

would be incumbent on them to complete - only those that are listed.

Mr. Speaker, that leads me to this, another worrisome thing:

that any partial land transactions that are not listed in that package, and

people who have not come forward to Kruger, whether they - I know there are some

old senior citizens there who don't know where their papers are and don't have

anybody to do anything for them, and never completed the transactions - who is

going to look after them? Will they be looked after by Crown lands? When the

disposition takes place, will they - would the minister, even a small amendment

to this particular legislation would look after those people. They are not big

companies, they are the ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have a

piece of property. Like the Premier said, some of it through squatter's - if it

was Crown land, they would be looked after by Crown land under squatter's

rights. Any land in the Province occupied previous to October 23 -

MS. VERGE: A lot of them have deeds but never registered

them.

MR. WOODFORD: I know.

MS. VERGE: They won't be protected.

MR. WOODFORD: Unless they are listed. If they are listed

on this, they will be looked after by Crown lands. If they are not listed, then

they are not going to be looked after. If they are listed on this then Crown

lands will look after them, when the disposition takes place. But my worry, if

this goes through, is that those who are not listed are not going to be looked

after.

This, to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. Kruger should not have

the right to dictate to the town of Deer Lake or any other town in this

Province. Now, this is not the first time - I will say something this evening

that I said in this House before; I have said it on a good many occasions in

debate in this House: that as far as I am concerned, every piece of property,

every piece of land, every hectare, owned by Abitibi-Price, or Kruger in this

Province should be taken back, period. They should not own a hectare of property

in this Province.

If I want to cut 10,000 cubic meters of wood, or 5,000 cubic

meters of wood, I have to go to the minister and get a permit. Should it be any

more -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and

Training.

MR. DECKER: If you were to take the land back from them,

would you pay them for taking it back?

MR. WOODFORD: Would I what?

MR. DECKER: Would you reimburse them for taking the land

back from them?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: In this case, Mr. Speaker, they have been

paid and paid well over the years, no question, but not to just shrug off the

minister's question, yes, I think, it would be fair to pay them. The price here

with regard to buying land back is not bad, but when you look at what is in

here, nobody working with Kruger is going to fool me by giving me a map and

showing me the sections on this map. I can tell him exactly where - and the

minister, especially down in the minister's area, he is well aware of what is

going on down there.

In this agreement, they are going to give him first call on

the pulpwood in the Roddickton area, but they always had it and they never cut

it, and they wouldn't give it to the people down there to cut - they couldn't

even run their sawmills. You wouldn't give them a permit to cut it, yet

Abitibi-Price could go in there and take the wood and truck it right to

Stephenville. It didn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.

The irony in this is that Kruger and Abitibi have to come

back to the minister and ask him to approve their annual allowable cut. Every

year he has to approve an annual allowable cut; whether it is 45,000 cubic

meters, 50,000 cubic meters, or 60,000 cubic meters, they have to come to

government every year. The minister has the right to say, no, you are not

cutting 10,000 cubic meters there, 30,000 over there, and 20,000 there, you are

going to cut the 45,000 or 50,000 cubic meters there. The minister has that

power and that right to do so.

Now, I have been hearing a lot of comments around here these

last few days about the viability and the long-term wood supply for Kruger.

Kruger is one of the best off companies today when it comes to wood supply on

this